unity.^274 The approach employing the legal concept of recognition
did not provide any lasting results.
The so-called Toronto Declaration of the World Council of
Churches (1950) is the next and more careful attempt to launch a
theological concept of recognition. This declaration highlights the
idea that membership of the WCC‘must be based on the common
recognition that Christ is the Divine Head of the Body’. In spite of
their differences, the churches need to know that‘they recognize one
another as serving the One Lord’.^275 At the founding assembly of the
WCC in Amsterdam 1948 it was agreed that‘the World Council of
Churches is composed of Churches which acknowledge Jesus Christ
as God and Savior’.^276 We can see the Augustinian vertical idea of
agnoscoin such passages.
Regarding the horizontal dimension of mutual recognition among
churches, the Toronto Declaration adopts a qualified view. The
member churches need not regard the other member churches‘as
Churches in the true and full sense of the word’. In addition to the
vertical recognition of Jesus as Lord, they need, however, to‘recognize
in other Churches elements of the true Church...this mutual recog-
nition obliges them to enter into a serious conversation with each
other in the hope that these elements of truth will lead to the
recognition of the full truth’. Moreover, ‘the member Churches
should recognize their solidarity with one another, render assistance
to one another in case of need, and refrain from such actions that are
incompatible with brotherly relationships’.^277
These horizontal passages contain some ideas of the Latinagnitio
veritatis, such as the search for truth and mutual love. At the same
time, the overall view of the Toronto Declaration remains legal or
administrative; for instance, the members need not practise conver-
sion but they may keep their own self-understanding. Similarly, the
Lund 1952 report of Faith and Order speaks of‘varying degrees of
recognition’among Christian churches, concluding that a‘full recog-
nition’ is often reserved for the member churches of one’s own
confessional family.^278 While the Lund report shows growing aware-
ness of different shades of ecumenical recognition, it does not provide
clear criteria for identifying them.
(^274) Kelly 1996, 56–7. (^275) Documentary History, 171, 173.
(^276) Documentary History, 167. (^277) Documentary History, 173–5.
(^278) Documentary History, 102.
The Modern Era 175